SalarySwishSalarySwish
Forums/Armchair-GM

The old socks

Créé par: Missouri
Équipe: 2024-25 Lightning de Tampa Bay
Date de création initiale: 18 mars 2024
Publié: 27 mars 2024
Mode - plafond salarial: Basique
Description
This is a simulated result of what trades/signings were made in our GHL GM League for a simulated off-season.

GM's were tasked with the job of getting their team ready for the season. They had to stay within the salary cap restrictions and must have a maximum of 6 players on the Taxi Squad for injury relief purposes.

Your job is to comment and evaluate how the GM managed their team.

Questions to answer:
1. What was the best move made by the GM?
2. What was the worst move made by the GM?
3. Did the GM improve the team or make them worse?

Thank you for playing! Our GHL GM League is played for a couple of months then posted on CapFriendly for everyone to see the results made by the GM's!
Signatures de joueurs autonomes
RFAANSCAP HIT
2800 000 $
2800 000 $
2800 000 $
2800 000 $
2800 000 $
2800 000 $
1800 000 $
1800 000 $
1800 000 $
UFAANSCAP HIT
26 850 000 $
2950 000 $
21 125 000 $
Offres hostiles
Le salaire annuel moyen (AAV) de l'offre hostile est calculé en divisant la valeur totale du contrat par: 1. La durée totale du contrat, ou 2. Cinq ans
JOUEURAAVCOMPENSATION
McGing, Hugh800 000 $Aucune compensation
Transactions
SJS
  1. Choix de 4e ronde en 2025 (TBL)
Rachats de contrats
Repêchage1e ronde2e ronde3e ronde4e ronde5e ronde6e ronde7e ronde
2024
Logo de TBL
Logo de TBL
Logo de TBL
Logo de CHI
Logo de MIN
2025
Logo de TBL
Logo de TBL
Logo de EDM
Logo de TBL
Logo de TBL
Logo de TBL
Logo de ARI
Logo de MIN
Logo de SJS
2026
Logo de TBL
Logo de TBL
Logo de TBL
Logo de TBL
Logo de TBL
Logo de TBL
Logo de TBL
TAILLE DE LA FORMATIONPLAFOND SALARIALCAP HITEXCÉDENTS Info-bulleBONISESPACE SOUS LE PLAFOND SALARIAL
2188 000 000 $87 660 000 $0 $80 000 $340 000 $

Formation

Ailier gaucheCentreAilier droit
Logo de Lightning de Tampa Bay
6 850 000 $6 850 000 $
AG, C
UFA
Logo de Lightning de Tampa Bay
9 500 000 $9 500 000 $
C, AD
NMC
UFA - 6
Logo de Lightning de Tampa Bay
9 500 000 $9 500 000 $
AD
M-NTC
UFA - 3
Logo de Lightning de Tampa Bay
6 500 000 $6 500 000 $
AG
UFA - 8
Logo de Lightning de Tampa Bay
6 250 000 $6 250 000 $
C, AG
UFA - 7
Logo de Lightning de Tampa Bay
2 000 000 $2 000 000 $
AG, AD
M-NTC
UFA - 2
Logo de Lightning de Tampa Bay
2 665 000 $2 665 000 $
AD, AG
M-NTC
UFA - 1
Logo de Lightning de Tampa Bay
3 150 000 $3 150 000 $
C, AG
NTC
UFA - 5
Logo de Lightning de Tampa Bay
800 000 $800 000 $
AD, C
UFA - 1
1 125 000 $1 125 000 $
AG, C
UFA
Logo de Lightning de Tampa Bay
800 000 $800 000 $
C, AD, AG
UFA - 1
Logo de Lightning de Tampa Bay
950 000 $950 000 $
AD, AG
UFA
Défenseur gaucherDéfenseur droitierGardien de but
Logo de Lightning de Tampa Bay
7 875 000 $7 875 000 $
DG
M-NTC
UFA - 1
Logo de Lightning de Tampa Bay
5 200 000 $5 200 000 $
DD
NTC
UFA - 7
Logo de Lightning de Tampa Bay
9 500 000 $9 500 000 $
G
NMC
UFA - 4
Logo de Lightning de Tampa Bay
8 500 000 $8 500 000 $
DG/DD
NTC
UFA - 7
Logo de Lightning de Tampa Bay
1 125 000 $1 125 000 $
DD
UFA - 1
Logo de Lightning de Tampa Bay
775 000 $775 000 $
G
UFA - 1
Logo de Sharks de San Jose
2 750 000 $2 750 000 $
DG/DD
UFA - 1
Logo de Lightning de Tampa Bay
975 000 $975 000 $
DD
UFA - 2
Laissés de côtéListe des blessés (IR)Liste des blessés à long terme (LTIR)
Logo de Lightning de Tampa Bay
870 000 $870 000 $ (Bonis de performance80 000 $$80K)
DG
RFA - 1
Équipe de réserve
Logo de Lightning de Tampa Bay
800 000 $800 000 $ (0 $$00 $$0)
AG, AD
UFA
Logo de Lightning de Tampa Bay
800 000 $800 000 $ (0 $$00 $$0)
C, AG
RFA
800 000 $800 000 $ (0 $$00 $$0)
AG, C
UFA
Logo de Lightning de Tampa Bay
775 000 $775 000 $ (0 $$00 $$0)
G
UFA - 1
Logo de Lightning de Tampa Bay
800 000 $800 000 $ (0 $$00 $$0)
DG
UFA
Logo de Lightning de Tampa Bay
800 000 $800 000 $ (0 $$00 $$0)
AG
RFA

Code d'intégration

  • Pour afficher cette équipe sur un autre site Web ou blog, ajoutez ce iFrame à la page appropriée
  • Personnalisez les dimensions dans le code IFrame ci-dessous pour adapter votre site de manière appropriée. Minimum recommandé: 400px.

Texte intégré

Cliquer pour surligner
27 mars à 15 h 1
#1
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: nov. 2022
Messages: 8,724
Mentions "j'aime": 10,584
Best move: re-signing Stamkos
Worst move: trading for Rutta
Team is worse. Brought in Rutta and Girgensons instead of re-signing Duclair
Missouri et Brolekb2b a aimé ceci.
27 mars à 15 h 9
#2
Démarrer sujet
Retired V2 V3 GM
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: mai 2017
Messages: 3,617
Mentions "j'aime": 1,142
Quoting: Hawksguy81
Best move: re-signing Stamkos
Worst move: trading for Rutta
Team is worse. Brought in Rutta and Girgensons instead of re-signing Duclair


Thanks for playing! Yeah the Tampa GM had a tough go. He tried signing Zadorov and then he got overpaid so he went a total different route. I think he lost for not doing enough in general to get better.
27 mars à 15 h 11
#3
CapEvasionEnthusiast
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: janv. 2022
Messages: 782
Mentions "j'aime": 458
Best move was probably resigning Stamkos. AAV is a bit steep for a 2 year. An additional year of term would have been nice on that, he'll probably want security when it comes time to negotiate.

Worst move? Oh boy. Seeing as this is 24-25, trading for Jan Rutta has to be up there with other things. If Rutta was in TB's plans he'd have already signed here instead. Lilleberg might need some more developing sure but he's transitioned pretty well to the NHL in his rookie year for us as a 3LD. There's no need to give up an asset for Rutta (and play him at his off-hand on LD) at that AAV when we're still missing a top six scoring help in this lineup, or could use an extra top four RD option instead. Rutta just eats up cap that could be used elsewhere. It's either this or bringing back Barre-Boulet to occupy a roster spot when he's done nothing but cardio for the last 2 months during his NHL stint.

Overall I'd say the team probably gets worse. Rutta is a missed chance to add to the forward core, Conor Sheary is not a legitimate top six option, and the Alex Barre-Boulet is an NHLer experiment has failed, it's time to let go. Also I'm not exactly sure what Girgensons contributes to the bottom six at that cap hit that a guy like Tyler Motte making close to league minimum or a player from Syracuse can't.
Missouri a aimé ceci.
27 mars à 15 h 15
#4
Démarrer sujet
Retired V2 V3 GM
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: mai 2017
Messages: 3,617
Mentions "j'aime": 1,142
Quoting: Brolekb2b
Best move was probably resigning Stamkos. AAV is a bit steep for a 2 year. An additional year of term would have been nice on that, he'll probably want security when it comes time to negotiate.

Worst move? Oh boy. Seeing as this is 24-25, trading for Jan Rutta has to be up there with other things. If Rutta was in TB's plans he'd have already signed here instead. Lilleberg might need some more developing sure but he's transitioned pretty well to the NHL in his rookie year for us as a 3LD. There's no need to give up an asset for Rutta (and play him at his off-hand on LD) at that AAV when we're still missing a top six scoring help in this lineup, or could use an extra top four RD option instead. Rutta just eats up cap that could be used elsewhere. It's either this or bringing back Barre-Boulet to occupy a roster spot when he's done nothing but cardio for the last 2 months during his NHL stint.

Overall I'd say the team probably gets worse. Rutta is a missed chance to add to the forward core, Conor Sheary is not a legitimate top six option, and the Alex Barre-Boulet is an NHLer experiment has failed, it's time to let go. Also I'm not exactly sure what Girgensons contributes to the bottom six at that cap hit that a guy like Tyler Motte making close to league minimum or a player from Syracuse can't.


Thanks for playing! I agree with everything you said!
Brolekb2b a aimé ceci.
 
Répondre
To create a post please Login or S'inscrire
Question:
Options:
Ajouter une option
Soumettre le sondage